3 A. Retrogression and persistent barriers to accessing contraceptive information and services In relation to access to contraceptive services, in its summary report, the Committee recommended among others that the state party ensure access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health services including emergency contraceptives “with particular focus on economically disadvantaged women and adolescent girls” 20 and to eliminate “economic and structural barriers that result in unequal access to sexual and reproductive health services, including limitations pertaining to women’s marital status, age and number of children.”21 Specific to women’s and girls’ access to sexual and reproductive health information, the Committee recommended among others that the state party ensure that women are able to “make informed decisions about the number and spacing of children” and that “non-biased, scientifically sound and rights-based counselling and information on sexual and reproductive health services, including on all methods of contraception” are available.22 The Committee also recommended for the inclusion of comprehensive and age-appropriate sexual and reproductive health education in schools23 and the conduct of campaigns to address misconceptions on the use of modern contraceptives and the gender-based stereotypes discouraging its use.24 Current legal framework on contraceptive access. In 2012, the state party enacted the RPRHA, the first national reproductive health law of the Philippines which guarantees “universal access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies.”25 While the RPRHA was an important step forward, conservative religious and anti-reproductive rights groups have resorted to the Supreme Court to impede its full implementation for over three years and strip it of important provisions. The Supreme Court issued its first order restraining the implementation of the RPRHA in March 2013.26 As will be discussed, the RPRHA has violated core human rights standards including those under CEDAW resulting in practical condonation of grave reproductive rights violations by the state party. In its 2014 decision on the constitutionality of the RPRHA, Imbong v. Ochoa (Imbong), the Supreme Court declared several key provisions of the law as unconstitutional.27 As a result, health care providers may refuse to carry out “elective” reproductive health procedures such as ligation or vasectomy for married individuals on the ground of lack of spousal consent. Providers may also require parental consent for all minors to access modern contraceptives, including those who are already parents or have suffered miscarriage for lack of parental consent.28 The court’s decision also allowed institutions to exercise “conscientious objection” and removed any obligation on the part of private health facilities, non-maternity specialty hospitals, and hospitals run by religious groups to refer women seeking modern contraceptives to alternative health care providers. 29 In ALFI v. DoH (ALFI), the Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the DoH and any of its agents from “procuring, selling, distributing, dispensing or administering, advertising and promoting" Implanon and Implanon NXT and preventing it from approving applications for certification of contraceptive drugs and devices.30 In its September 2016 decision which was later modified in a 2017 resolution, the Supreme Court failed to prioritize women’s reproductive rights by denying the lifting of the TRO and issuing onerous directives (discussed in more detail below) that must be complied with by the DoH and FDA for the certification, recertification, distribution, and administration of any contraceptive drugs and devices.31 During the